HMS Invincible and the Malvinas War in 1982

Kysusha wrote:What always struck me as strange about that "photograph" of the HMS Invincible burning is what IS NOT HAPPENING in the photo.

For a start , the smoke is too thick and too "isolated". There is no evidence of smoke emanating from vents, openings or secondary damage areas.

Where are the damage control teams/? Absolutely NO ONE on deck after a serious hit????

No Medics or injured on deck?

No heat damage - that amount of smoke must be coming from a very intense fire, yet there is no evidence of blistering, warping or other damage visible on the flight deck or any part of the superstructure.

There is no evidence of any sort of explosion which would have started the fire.

A look at the wave pattern would suggest that she is quartering the waves – SOP for fire on board is to turn to wind. While the photo shows smoke going aft, the wave pattern tends to suggest a conflict with the smoke.

If this hit was supposedly in the turbine region – would not the funnels be emitting a substantially greater amount of smoke – black sooty smoke as in a fire?

And more questions???

Look, I am not a sailor – I’m a grunt, but just ask yourself intelligence type questions and see if they can be answered by the photograph. For my part, the photo leaves out more than it shows.

Just take a moment and sit quietly – think about what happens in a fire on-board and try to visualise what might be happening on HMS Invincible if she was mortally hit and in peril of sinking. Imagine the flurry of activity that would accompany a serious hit. Think about what sort of damage a missile or bomb strike would cause and what you could expect to see. Make a list of “things” then ask the photo questions; see if you get the answers from this photo.

My bet is – you don’t.

Safe bet. Still no sign of any evidence from Soltec.

"The man who never was" Classic deception.
I could actually see Britain doing that in the Falklands Conflict, but not with regards to Invincible. In this case they have 2 argie pilots who swear blind they attacked and bombed a carrier burning after it had been hit by an exocet fired at extreme range. HMS Coventry and HMS Exeter both fired Sea Dart missiles at extreme range, both missiles fell short, it shows how unreliable missiles are when fired at the maximum distance. Now I'm not saying that the argies didn’t attempt to attack Invincible, what I'm saying is they didn’t hit Invincible. Nobody is casting any doubts about the bravery of some of the argie pilots, but I am casting severe doubt on the claims of this 2 argie pilots, as far as I'm concerned they are out and out liars. What I also cast doubt on is the intelligence of people like Soltec, who seem to be unable to comprehend the magnitude of their claims. The argies were told by the Junta that they were winning the war right up to the point Argentina surrendered, they were told lie after lie, yet Soltec and other argies like him believe everything the Junta said in 1982. The argies even claimed they sunk Canberra, yet she took the PoWs back to Argentina, the claimed they sunk HMS Fearless, yet a captured FAA pilot was taken onboard, I remember the interview, the pilot asked what ship he was on, when told it was Fearless he said " It cant be, we sank her 3 days ago", plenty argie conscripts interviewed after 1982 have said many of the same things "we were lied to" yet these conspiracy theorists believe everything that the Junta said, even without any evidence being supplied to them, just the word of 2 pilots who I believe turned and ran for home when they saw their mates being shot down.

Aberdeenlad wrote: on the first page of this thread you said Argentina made the photo, make up your mind.
The only lies are coming from Argentina, you guys dont have any evidence what so ever, not one scrap.

first learn to read or buy lenses
read again in first page:
The same was supplied from outside to various news agencies, a few days after the attack.
In Argentina, this picture was not known and many took it as an example of the attack.
.

Kysusha wrote:BTW, I think we need to clarify one thing here - The Islands are THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, not Los Malvianas. Maybe Argies Los Malvianas - but the Atlas calls the island British territory and by name - The Falkand Islands. Don't cry for me Argentina.

Malvinas is the original name. derived from "Malouines", name fixed from the french discover Louis Antoine Bougainville in 1764.
in 1766 France agreed to evacuate and recognized Spanish sovereignty over the isles at change to provided compensation to Bougainville.
From 1820 our territory just independient from Spain (1816) made the real occupation of isles giving support to a lot nations that have ships around isles as a friendly demostration of our new country.

Comptroller activities that Argentinian Governor Vernet waged against illegal whaling ships made the warship of the United States Lexington destroyed the mayor city in isles, Puerto Soledad. On January 2, 1833 was the British frigate HMS Clio, the command of Captain John James Onslow, savagely attacked by second time the civilian population Argentinian of the islands and claimed British sovereignty, taking possession of the Malvinas and forcibly expelling the population defenseless.

You are free to call as you preffer our isles.
All publications from argentina and friendly countries call ISLAS MALVINAS
The islands were, are and will Argentinians

if not, the United Nations would no possibility of complaint to our country.
UK systematically denied to the peaceful settlement of this case covered colonialism in its nuclear weapons and NATO cooperation

Aberdeenlad wrote:That’s a good post mate. What we have to differentiate is what deception is and what is lies. In war (as you will know) you don’t tell the truth, except in circumstances where all you can do is tell the truth, Sheffield, Coventry etc. Deception is sweeping back the dirt onto the runway. Now this whole story about HMS Invincible being sunk was denied during the Falklands conflict by the RN and the media onboard, infact the media were still sending back reports from onboard HMS Invincible after the argies surrendered. A couple of pages back from this one I posted pictures of HMS Invincible taken in July 1982, long after the silly argie claims that they sank her, infact, the FAA don’t claim to have sunk HMS Invincible, all they claim is they hit her, only these conspiracy theorists like Soltec claim Vince was sunk.

My take on this is that these people can’t handle the fact they lost a war, BADLY!! They lost to a smaller force that travelled 8000 miles by sea and won every single battle on the Falklands, the only saving grace for the argies was the performance of the FAA and for some strange reason they think they should invent stories to make the FAA look better than it was.

Look at Soltec’s posts, he’s living in a dream world, he’s posting pictures of destroyers and claiming they are a ship that was back in Portsmouth. I posted a picture showing Invincible with Illustrious in the South Atlantic, and he claims that it’s really Illustrious and Ark Royal, despite me also posting a picture showing Illustrious leaving the Tyne with a half built Ark Royal in the background.

Despite numerous requests for evidence from Soltec, I have still received no proof at all.

precisely, I do not speak for our armed forces, it makes me work harder to investigate but I have nothing to hide or claim that is not strictly based on my information.
I say that Vince went down and am working to prove
UK has 4 completely different versions of what happened and can not show any 100%
and they have all the power of media and TV to sell their own history.

If you trust in UK goverment please post photo of the change of turbines at sea of R05 Invincible in 1982.
Is easy ?? If they dont lie, they have the proof

Aberdeenlad wrote:
This changing a turbine sure is playing on your mind. Can you tell me once and for all, do you actually have any evidence that you hit Invincible, never mind sunk her?

turbine change is one of the 4 explanations contradictory offered by the British government.
The change of turbines is not my invention.
I also think it's a lie.
Consultation with other sailors if having an available port, would change the turbine on the high seas, in time of winter storms

My opinion is, the people of the land will determine the name of the land. While the Falklands are inhanited by British and British decendants - it will remain The Falklands. Any attempt to usurp that will have to be by force and as such - an illegal move and contraraty to International Law.
If Argentina want the Islands back, then they need to settle the Islands and work with the population to effect constitutional change. Personaly, I couldn't care one way or the other: I'm Irish and have had enough of colonuialism anyway! What I oppose is rule by might - and that is percicely what Argentina tried to do!

If Argentina wants the islands back, they need to take out the MP airfield and land a couple battalions. If the UK is able to reinforce the island they don't have a prayer.

soltec wrote:

Aberdeenlad wrote:
This changing a turbine sure is playing on your mind. Can you tell me once and for all, do you actually have any evidence that you hit Invincible, never mind sunk her?

turbine change is one of the 4 explanations contradictory offered by the British government.
The change of turbines is not my invention.
I also think it's a lie.
Consultation with other sailors if having an available port, would change the turbine on the high seas, in time of winter storms

Your still on about a turbine change!!! Why dont you just post your evidence to prove once and for all that you sunk Invincible?

Kysusha wrote:My opinion is, the people of the land will determine the name of the land. While the Falklands are inhanited by British and British decendants - it will remain The Falklands. Any attempt to usurp that will have to be by force and as such - an illegal move and contraraty to International Law.
If Argentina want the Islands back, then they need to settle the Islands and work with the population to effect constitutional change. Personaly, I couldn't care one way or the other: I'm Irish and have had enough of colonuialism anyway! What I oppose is rule by might - and that is percicely what Argentina tried to do!

Studies which were the events that triggered the conflict.
UK arrested Argentine civilians that working in the Georgias islands and caused the Argentina military response.
UK diplomatically refused to fix it because it suited him.
In full diplomatic negotiations sinking the cruiser ARA General Belgrano with 360 dead.
That was the response to diplomacy, a nuclear submarine attack on a vessel of the WW II.

If UK is just sovereignty over the islands, why fears UN decisions about our Islas Malvinas?

Vladimir79 wrote:If Argentina wants the islands back, they need to take out the MP airfield and land a couple battalions. If the UK is able to reinforce the island they don't have a prayer.

Argentinian armed forces have the most powerfull enemy at home, our president.
She disband all forces.
Actually our forces only have amunitions to 2 hours of real combat
Dont fear uk